Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[jwhitlock]

ou ignore the law. You artogantly claim superiority.

As i understand Cfr, you ablige, or you retract your statent, or you leave the discussion.

Fullfil the CFR, or retract you false statement or leave the discussion.

YOU CAN NOT factually demonstrate that I am wrong. YOU CAN NOT do so because I have citing the law.

The very least you could to maintain some minute degree of credibility is say "Yes that is the law, I disagree and here is why". Yet you cant even do that you just arrogantly promouce "you are wrong, my opinions are the standard of truth."

Fulfill the CFRs, or retract your claim, which is demonstrabely shown to be false.

 

 

 

Eloquent as always, tonie.

 

I don't think CFR means what you think it means. If you disagree, please feel free to report me. 

 

To me, at least, it's clear that your demands for CFRs are just a dodge so that you don't have to address the specific points that I have already made in posts. Since you won't address those in detail, I have little faith that you would directly address any response I could make to your current demands.

 

However, since you evidently don't want to go back and actually read what I've posted, I'll let you ponder this from a previous post:

 

Is the power of the government to tax a right that is on par with our individual rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of religion? Or does it supersede those rights?

[tonie]

jwhitlock,

PROVE my statements WRONG, or retract tour claim.

If you want to know about tax exemption and religion, read Bob Jones University v United States.

You claimed I was wrong, factually prove your statement, or retract it. Your philosophical OPINIONS, do not prove me factually wrong.

Edited July 11, 2015 by tonie

[jwhitlock]

jwhitlock,

PROVE my statements WRONG, or retract tour claim.

If you want to know about tax exemption and religion, read Bob Jones University v United States.

You claimed I was wrong, factually prove your statement, or retract it. Your philosophical OPINIONS, do not prove me factually wrong.

 

As I posted before, you have refused to respond to the specific points made that call your claims into question. Until you're willing to do so, this is just a smoke screen on your part.

 

My question in the last post addressed one of your points, and yet you still ignored it. Seems to be SOP on your part, so until you're actually willing to have a discussion about those points instead of this dismissive ranting you do, this is not going to be very productive.

 

Or is a productive discussion what you're trying to avoid?

[tonie]

jwhitlock,

PROVE my statements WRONG, or retract tour claim.

If you want to know about tax exemption and religion, read Bob Jones University v United States.

You claimed I was wrong, factually prove your statement, or retract it. Your philosophical OPINIONS, do not prove me factually wrong.

As I posted before, you have refused to respond to the specific points made that call your claims into question. Until you're willing to do so, this is just a smoke screen on your part.

My question in the last post addressed one of your points, and yet you still ignored it. Seems to be SOP on your part, so until you're actually willing to have a discussion about those points instead of this dismissive ranting you do, this is not going to be very productive.

Or is a productive discussion what you're trying to avoid?

I have cited the law, i have presented the facts, you claim they are wrong. Factually prove my statents wrong.

PROVE that school accredidation is a RIGHT

PROVE official recognition by Unversities of religious student groups is a RIGHT

PROVE tax exempt status is a RIGHT.

[Kenngo1969]

... religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line [sic] on political correctness. ...

"Towing" the line is one thing; toeing it, however, is quite another.  Just sayin'!

Edited July 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

Because we're repeatedly getting challenges on this board now to show "specific, concrete examples" of how religious freedom is being threatened or trampled upon (I've answered such challenges on at least two occasions now), as though such examples did not exist, I have started this thread to provide such examples when I encounter them. This, of course, is meant to be an on-going and cumulative thread.

 

Here's one such example that I ran across today. 

 

The are 300 million people living in the USA, of course injustices happen somewhere. That doesn't mean your religious rights are going to go away. 

 

PS you want gay rights to go away   

Edited July 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[jwhitlock]

PS you want gay rights to go away   

 

 

Over-generalization, and hence inaccurate. The point of contention is SSM specifically, not gay rights generally.

[ERayR]

 

PS you want gay rights to go away   

 

 

Over-generalization, and hence inaccurate. The point of contention is SSM specifically, not gay rights generally.

 

 

Don't confuse him with facts.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Don't confuse him with facts.

 

LOL is that the best you guys can do? and where are the facts? 

 

Please respond to my actual arguments in post 142 and 156  

[jwhitlock]

 

Don't confuse him with facts.

 

LOL is that the best you guys can do? and where are the facts? 

 

Please respond to my actual arguments in post 142 and 156  

 

 

I gather, then, that you accept the fact that you were misrepresenting Scott when you said "PS you want gay rights to go away". We need to address that before we move on to your other posts.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I gather, then, that you accept the fact that you were misrepresenting Scott when you said "PS you want gay rights to go away". We need to address that before we move on to your other posts.

 

When I say "gay rights" I mean gay marriage and adoption. I didn't say "all gay rights" 

 

Please move on and reply to my actual arguments 

[ERayR]

 

I gather, then, that you accept the fact that you were misrepresenting Scott when you said "PS you want gay rights to go away". We need to address that before we move on to your other posts.

 

When I say "gay rights" I mean gay marriage and adoption. I didn't say "all gay rights" 

 

Please move on and reply to my actual arguments 

 

You act as if your meaning is self evident.  It is not.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Is this a serious question? BYU is a private institution and, as such, entitled to set its own conditions for enrollment, and enrollment there is a privilege, not an entitlement or a right.

 

I understand BYU has the right to do what ever it wants, but isn't BYU suppose to be an example to the world? 

BYU students do not know their future, the students that changed their religion didn't know it was going to happen. 

 

 

Doesn't bother me. Should it?

 

Religious polygamists are experiencing real persecution. So you are only concerned about conservative Christian religious freedom, not about the religious freedom of others? The poor polygamists in Utah get arrested for practicing their religious beliefs, but you don't care about that. 

 

"Doesn't bother me. Should it?"

 

So you don't believe some religions have the right for the religious use of Cannabis? and what about the people that need medical marijuana?

 

 

Edited July 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[jwhitlock]

 

I gather, then, that you accept the fact that you were misrepresenting Scott when you said "PS you want gay rights to go away". We need to address that before we move on to your other posts.

 

When I say "gay rights" I mean gay marriage and adoption. I didn't say "all gay rights" 

 

Please move on and reply to my actual arguments 

 

 

I think you need to be more accurate in your postings, then. "PS you want gay rights to go away" seems rather all inclusive in normal conversation.

 

That inaccuracy extends to your other posts, as well.

 

In #156:

 

"The are 300 million people living in the USA, of course injustices happen somewhere. That doesn't mean your religious rights are going to go away."

 

We're not talking about random injustices among the populace. We're talking about institutionalized removal of religious freedoms by governments and courts. Your statement above misrepresents what we're actually talking about.

 

In #142:

 

"I understand BYU has the right to do what ever it wants, but isn't BYU suppose to be an example for religious freedom? BYU students do not know their future, the students that changed their religion didn't know it was going to happen." 

. 

 

 

You conflate religious freedom with institutional (in this case, University) policies regarding qualifications for attendance.

 

Members of the church enter BYU under a certain structure that relates specifically to their membership in the church. That structure is (or should be) well understood up front. When that person is no longer a member, that structure changes for reasons that BYU itself has made clear. Interestingly enough, non-members enter under a different structure that recognizes they are not members of the church. They are free to exercise their own religious beliefs as long as they don't conflict with the religious standards of the sponsoring organization.

 

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom. A religious organization and the schools it sponsors are allowed to maintain certain expectations of their members when they attend those schools.

 

"So you are only concerned about conservative Christian religious freedom, not about the religious freedom of others. The poor polygamists in Utah get arrested for practicing their religious beliefs, but you don't care about that."

 

 

 

Your first statement is unsupported by your second, and seem to be more of a flame than something based in actual fact. The fact is that the church has been very clear about religious freedom for all, not just for LDS.

 

Secondly (and Scott can correct me since I'm speaking from an East Coast perspective), from what I understand, Utah typically has only prosecuted polygamists when there are other problems such as abuse that are evident. That has also been a function of the State of Utah, and not a function of the church. Those are, believe it or not, separate entities. The vast majority of polygamists in Utah are not prosecuted or persecuted because it's rather difficult to prove, since society doesn't see anything wrong with people living together without marriage. The church's only action in these cases has been to execute any members they find practicing it.  Again, this has nothing to do with religious freedom.

 

"The only war on religious comes from conservative Christians (most Utah lawmakers are conservative Christians) " 

 

Throw away statement that is not worth responding to.

 

 

PS - Thanks to Scott for pointing out my typo above. I did mean to say "excommunicate" instead of "execute". Changes the meaning just a little bit...

Edited July 14, 2015 by jwhitlock

[jwhitlock]

Just as an aside to this thread, the new quoting functions and restrictions are a real pain. I had to reformat my above response because I was using "too many quote boxes". what a hassle.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You said, "We're not talking about random injustices among the populace. We're talking about institutionalized removal of religious freedoms by governments and courts. Your statement above misrepresents what we're actually talking about."

 

There are thousands of courts in the country, injustices happen sometimes. I didn't misrepresent anything. 
 

What about the war on secularism?

 

 

You conflate religious freedom with institutional (in this case, University) policies regarding qualifications for attendance.

 

I understand BYU has the right to have the policies it wants, all I am saying is that BYU should be an example to the world.

I never said BYU is the government. 

 

 

Secondly (and Scott can correct me since I'm speaking from an East Coast perspective), from what I understand, Utah typically has only prosecuted polygamists when there are other problems such as abuse that are evident. That has also been a function of the State of Utah, and not a function of the church. Those are, believe it or not, separate entities. The vast majority of polygamists in Utah are not prosecuted or persecuted because it's rather difficult to prove, since society doesn't see anything wrong with people living together without marriage. The church's only action in these cases has been to execute any members they find practicing it.  Again, this has nothing to do with religious freedom.

 

"The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/

Edited July 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[tonie]

Unfortunately the "examples" are not doing too well.

 

University recognition of students groups is not a religious right. And despite claims otherwise, religious themed student groups are not being kicked out of campuses.  The religious student group which maintain their religious integrity and did not capitulate to Unveristy requirement for official recognition, were still permitted to meet on said campuses; such was proven in the very article presented in this thread. 

 

Scholastic accredidation also is not a religious right. In fact, scholastic accredidation is not a right period. There is legal recourse for scholastic institutions regarding their accredidation.

 

Religious Tax exempt status, also is not a religious right. For a history of tax exempt status see Bob Jone University v United States pages 9 - 11 relavent part:

 

"the legal background against which Congress enacted the first charitable exemption statute in 1894: charities were to be given preferential "The exemption from taxation of treatment because they provide a benefit to society."    Lone Dissent: To the extent that the Court states that Congress in furtherance of this policy could deny tax-exempt status to educational institutions that promote racial discrimination, I readily agree.   

 

Thus we see that tax-exempt status is a privilege granted by Congress, and denying said privilege to  religious institutions has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Edited July 12, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

Only one example so far raises concern.

 

 

The Iowa Civil Rights law should cause much concern. As the law reads, and as it is interpreted by the Iowa civil rights commission, an individual of a protected class, who voluntarly attends Church services and hears a sermon that speaks against that protected class; has grounds to file a complaint. 

 

The Iowa civil rights law does not exempt religions to some degree. A religious service open to the public, however, is NOT A protected venue. Therefore, sermons, or Bible verses could create a liability to the particular Church or religious speaker.   Iowas DOES NOT have Religious Freedom Restoration Act type legislation.

[Damien the Leper]

Couldn't the same be said about other forms of deviant sexuality?

Like heterosexuality? Polygamy? Polygny? Polyandry? The latter three are the most damning.

 

Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry are relational structures and not sexual practices.

 

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual practices.

 

Hence, your comment is inaccurate.

Oh. That's right. There is absolutely no sexual component to any of them and there never has been

[jwhitlock]

Oh. That's right. There is absolutely no sexual component to any of them and there never has been

 

I can see how that perspective would be fostered by someone who primarily categorizes people by their sexual practices.

 

However, for the rest of us who have a more holistic view of people, they are indeed primarily relational structures.

[TheSkepticChristian]

There are real conspiracies and imaginary conspiracies. 9/11 truthers, NWO reptiles theory, fake Moon landing theory,  Global Warming conspiracy theorists, and the list goes on and on. A real conspiracy has real evidence. Imaginary conspiracies have pseudoscience and confirmation bias. 

 

I agree.  The trick is to figure out which are real and which are not.  Some are easy, some not so much. 

 

It helps if you 

1. Read the scientific literature. 

2. Learn to keep confirmation bias out. Try to understand Natural selection, it helps. 

3.The more people involved, the less likely it is real 

Edited July 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Russell C McGregor]

Ad hominem attack.

 

Not possible, Scott.  Only "Mormon apologists" make ad hominem attacks, and nobody could ever mistake Tonie for a defender of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Here's another specific instance of a threat, that religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness.

 

By the way, contributions from others are welcome. I intend to crowd-source this compilation of threats to religious freedom.

 

Aaargh!

 

And from a professional wordsmith, no less!

 

Have you eve seen anyone towing a line?  I've seen people towing a boat, a trailer or another car, but never a line.

 

The expression is a sports-related one, and it is toe the line.

 

[/rant]

[Russell C McGregor]

When I say "gay rights" I mean gay marriage and adoption. I didn't say "all gay rights" 

 

Please move on and reply to my actual arguments

FYI: adoption is not a "right."

The claim, insinuation or assumption that it is, appears to support a particular agenda. But it is false.

[ERayR]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It helps if you 

1. Read the scientific literature. 

2. Learn to keep confirmation bias out. Try to understand Natural selection, it helps. 

3.The more people involved, the less likely it is real 

 

 

1)  It helps if you are able to read it with comprehension.

 

2)Learn to keep confirmation bias out. Try to understand Natural selection, it helps.

 

3)  A great example of the scientific method coupled with sound reasoning.  Not.                                          

[Kenngo1969]

This may not be strictly responsive to the opening post (if you'd like me to delete it, let me know) but I was just visiting the Web site of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society on another matter, and I found this (I haven't explored it yet, but it looks like a gold mine): http://www.jrcls.org/news/item.php?id=130